This article is inconsistent even with that one. That article clearly denotes they would cover non-MMO games, but that doesn't excuse trying to pass non-MMO games off as MMO games.
That's the issue with the "new definition"- there isn't really a new definition, just an amalgamation of media journalists using the term in reference to anything they need to apply a good buzzword (or buzz-acronym, in this case) to.
The problem is the term hasn't evolved. It's just being applied with zero consistency or logic today under the guise of "evolution."
You're not wrong - but the article does give itself enough room to maneuver around these types of discussions. I also fall into the " grown with the times" camp .. after fighting it for years, to me if a game includes some form of large multiplayer in a open or persistent world then it's a mmo. I still hold out on the mmorpg tag though - regardless of rpg like mechanics in games like Destiny, Division, or Warframe I wouldn't call those mmorpgs. ( Standards are truly subjective)
" The other side is that this means the genre's
almost outgrown itself. More and more games are incorporating MMO-like
features and online play into their core design. You'll have Bungie and
Ubisoft claim often enough that Destiny or The Division "aren't really"
MMOs. And perhaps, they're right. Destiny won't be a
fully-on-all-the-time shared world in that you can't get away from other
people. It has a core single-player narrative, but events happen in the
massive game world that lead you into interacting and playing alongside
others... and that almost sounds like the ideal theme park MMO, doesn't
it? "
I get your point of view, but my argument regarding the "MMO" term is that games like Destiny already have an established term to describe them- multiplayer. Using MMO is incredibly redundant in that instance.
It's something I don't see going away, but that doesn't make it correct or beneficial. See microtransaction lootboxes. Same kind of situation. It isn't intuitive or logical, and the only party it benefits are the specific ones that stand to profit off of them. I understand the desire to make a buck, but that doesn't excuse sleazy behavior to do so. Be blunt, be honest, and be consistent with your consumers. Doesn't mean you can't cover multiplayer games, doesn't mean you can't include microtransactions to make a buck, just means you call it what it is and stop trying to pass it off as something it isn't or sneak it by the consumer.
It's as if the store in the mall that only sells scotch tape decided they're not making enough money so they start selling hula hoops also... but they change the name of the hula hoop to "large round scotch tape"
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
The term MMO is not an opinion, nor is the definition subject to one. It cannot simply mean what you want it to simply because you want it to......Well, I suppose it can, but you would be wrong.
MMO means Massively Multiplayer Online.
The rules of the English Language define this. "Massively" is an Adverb. As such it can only be used to describe a verb, another adverb or an adjective. Not a noun. So, the only other word it can describe within this term is Multiplayer. (PERIOD) It's not subjective. This means that it must be the multiplayer aspect of the game must be massive. There has to be a "massive" number of players who can interact together.
Now, the term massive is obviously not define and that term can be open to interpretation. But when used within the context of multi players............does 4-6 really sound like a massive number?
Also, if we want to say that because of general public use, we have altered the term from Massively to Massive......as in Massive Multiplayer Online game........Go ahead and google that term......."Massive Multiplayer Online Game"
There is not a single reference on page 1 that doesn't alter the term back to "Massively".
The hole in your argument is that massively has no distinct quantitative meaning. It’s an emotional not rational term. It can’t be used in a rational definition.
Objectively speaking, 6 is massively more than 1 by a factor of six. A game with thirty people is massively more multiplayer than a game with six people by a factor of five, and so on.
Massively can only show relativity to a baseline. It can’t stand as a constant on its own. It was never intended to be used that way. It was birthed as a marketing slogan by Garriott to pitch his new virtual world “Ultima Online “.
That is the depth of quality to the term. That’s why arguing over the minutiae of it is pointless.
Quake was released prior to Ultima and featured 16 player multiplayer. A little common sense goes a long way. We can debate borderline titles, but anything like 16 is not even debatable. Until Bill and the gang start covering Battlefield (not just lootbox controversy, but reviewing and such), 64 or less is not even debatable.
There is nothing to begin. They are not MMOs at all. Warframe is just Diablo style game in third person and PoE is top down hack and slash. You had to stretch this list by puting 5 extra games as there were no new MMOs worth mentioning and just old ones with some crappy DLC like patches except WoW and FF14 that actually get big content.
An MMO is defined as "
an online game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players, typically from hundreds to thousands, on the same server." ...this list at no place says "Top MMORPGS" So...yeah. they are MMOs. Theres really no debate in this, its stated in the name MMO.
The term MMO is not an opinion, nor is the definition subject to one. It cannot simply mean what you want it to simply because you want it to......Well, I suppose it can, but you would be wrong.
MMO means Massively Multiplayer Online.
The rules of the English Language define this. "Massively" is an Adverb. As such it can only be used to describe a verb, another adverb or an adjective. Not a noun. So, the only other word it can describe within this term is Multiplayer. (PERIOD) It's not subjective. This means that it must be the multiplayer aspect of the game must be massive. There has to be a "massive" number of players who can interact together.
Now, the term massive is obviously not define and that term can be open to interpretation. But when used within the context of multi players............does 4-6 really sound like a massive number?
Also, if we want to say that because of general public use, we have altered the term from Massively to Massive......as in Massive Multiplayer Online game........Go ahead and google that term......."Massive Multiplayer Online Game"
There is not a single reference on page 1 that doesn't alter the term back to "Massively".
The hole in your argument is that massively has no distinct quantitative meaning. It’s an emotional not rational term. It can’t be used in a rational definition.
Objectively speaking, 6 is massively more than 1 by a factor of six. A game with thirty people is massively more multiplayer than a game with six people by a factor of five, and so on.
Massively can only show relativity to a baseline. It can’t stand as a constant on its own. It was never intended to be used that way. It was birthed as a marketing slogan by Garriott to pitch his new virtual world “Ultima Online “.
That is the depth of quality to the term. That’s why arguing over the minutiae of it is pointless.
Quake was released prior to Ultima and featured 16 player multiplayer. A little common sense goes a long way. We can debate borderline titles, but anything like 16 is not even debatable. Until Bill and the gang start covering Battlefield (not just lootbox controversy, but reviewing and such), 64 or less is not even debatable.
Sixteen isn’t debatable says who? Sixty four is a magical number you pulled out of where? What is so special about 64?
Common sense has no place in math, science, or rational debate. It’s a subjective emotional term used to justify or eliminate uncomfortable arguments like arbitrarily asserting that a specific number is or is not open for debate.
Because Battlefield has player progression, unlocking of higher-tiered equipment, and allows more players to interact simultaneously in the same game world (64+) than, say, DOTA 2. If you're going to call DOTA 2 an MMO, logic dictates Battlefield will qualify.
But folks don't include titles like Battlefield, because the "new definition" isn't a definition at all, but an attempt to attach the label to any game that might benefit the party using the label at that time. As I mentioned before, that's about the only way to create an objectively terribad definition for a genre.
There is nothing to begin. They are not MMOs at all. Warframe is just Diablo style game in third person and PoE is top down hack and slash. You had to stretch this list by puting 5 extra games as there were no new MMOs worth mentioning and just old ones with some crappy DLC like patches except WoW and FF14 that actually get big content.
An MMO is defined as "
an online game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players, typically from hundreds to thousands, on the same server." ...this list at no place says "Top MMORPGS" So...yeah. they are MMOs. Theres really no debate in this, its stated in the name MMO.
I could write a lengthy diatribe on this; I have in the past, but I'll try to keep it brief:
Any difference in meaning between the terms "MMORPG" and "MMO" was ascribed after the fact. It's not like someone sat down and said 'we need a new term to define these new games coming out so let's chop off the last three letters, voila!'; it's more that Richard Garriot didn't foresee that when one was standing in line talking to one's GameStop clerk saying "em-em-oh-ar-pee-gee" made one sound abstruse when three syllables would get the job done.
MMO rolls off the tongue more easily, and while this term gained traction game design also changed. It was more of an accident than anything else. So easy to correlate the nouveau term with the daring new design(s).
It bothers me because there never was supposed to be any difference. MMO = MMORPG.
Part of it is also that people play MMORPGs in unexpected ways; it's kind of in the term: you are supposed to be role-playing, but how many actually do? Just being in the game space is compelling enough without muddying it up with "thee"s and "thou"s (necessarily). That is actual roleplaying: believing the space, but this seems too difficult a concept for the young internet age.
There is no reason a MMORPG can't have physics-based combat, instancing, a classless system, or even do away with the whole experience-points-leveling grind; none of those new additions take away anything from the heart of what makes a MMORPG a MMORPG.
It's just that some things do. As someone else ITT mentioned, what about PUBG qualifies as a persistent space? How is a player cap of 4 in Warframe massive?
Judging by some of the comments here, some people really don't understand why it even matters.
So there is this disconnect: people aren't playing MMORPGs the way they are "supposed" to be played, therefore it must be because some of them are "just" MMOs? No: it's because people are unpredictable widgets and will interact with art in wonderful and emergent ways.
...and as @GeezerGamer mentions, some don't understand the difference between an adverb and an adjective.
I agree with @Torval in spirit, but I fear in trying to stay so desperately abreast of the times some meaning in the value of MMORPGs will be lost.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
The term MMO is not an opinion, nor is the definition subject to one. It cannot simply mean what you want it to simply because you want it to......Well, I suppose it can, but you would be wrong.
MMO means Massively Multiplayer Online.
The rules of the English Language define this. "Massively" is an Adverb. As such it can only be used to describe a verb, another adverb or an adjective. Not a noun. So, the only other word it can describe within this term is Multiplayer. (PERIOD) It's not subjective. This means that it must be the multiplayer aspect of the game must be massive. There has to be a "massive" number of players who can interact together.
Now, the term massive is obviously not define and that term can be open to interpretation. But when used within the context of multi players............does 4-6 really sound like a massive number?
Also, if we want to say that because of general public use, we have altered the term from Massively to Massive......as in Massive Multiplayer Online game........Go ahead and google that term......."Massive Multiplayer Online Game"
There is not a single reference on page 1 that doesn't alter the term back to "Massively".
The hole in your argument is that massively has no distinct quantitative meaning. It’s an emotional not rational term. It can’t be used in a rational definition.
Objectively speaking, 6 is massively more than 1 by a factor of six. A game with thirty people is massively more multiplayer than a game with six people by a factor of five, and so on.
Massively can only show relativity to a baseline. It can’t stand as a constant on its own. It was never intended to be used that way. It was birthed as a marketing slogan by Garriott to pitch his new virtual world “Ultima Online “.
That is the depth of quality to the term. That’s why arguing over the minutiae of it is pointless.
I'm sorry but if we had Atari 2600 games in the late 70s that played four players on a console playing Pong. We then had the standard for multiplayer video games as 2-4(ish) that lasted for decades. We didn't call it a massive number of players. We called it "4". To add 2 more to an instance, put it online and call it "Massively Multiplayer" is just absurd. In what context does that make sense?
Oddly enough, in your other post, I'd probably concede to 16 being within the definition. I probably wouldn't use the term myself at 16 players, but I can see enough of a grey area in that to give it a pass. But I would struggle under any context to apply the term Massively Multiplayer to any game where the number of players who can interact together is in the single digits.
And people argued and trolled me by saying many of these are not MMOs. Looks like I was right! Games like path of exile ARE MMOs, just not MMORPGs.
Also, dungeons and dragons online has a very tiny server cluster...even at its peak I never saw more than 30 people in each server instance. Its also a hub based MMO. Its a very small hub. Its also VERY VERY instanced.
Turbine (the developers themselves) and many players however called it an MMORPG.
Why the double standards? Since Dungeons and Dragons Online is an MMO(RPG), and been called an MMO(RPG) for many years, and called that by Turbine themselves, so are the other similar games.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
In my experience, it has nothing to do with the number of people on a server at a time. It's all about how the game is played and how other players interact -- what the game does to get them to interact, or how it controls or limits interaction. TLDR version: While I'm all for making and keeping distinctions between games, I don't think that an arbitrary number is the answer to what's an MMO or MMORPG.
MMO is a nice shorthand way of saying MMORPG, in the right context, but obviously it has merit as simply meaning MMO without the RPG, too. Writers should just be clear what they're talking about.
Also, there were lots of games that had multiple players long before MMORPGS or even computers came out, but nobody called them multiplayer games -- they were "team sports" and such. So games like Overwatch, which involve 12 players at a time, I don't think of as MMOs, or MOs for that matter. On the other hand, if I play a game that has thousands of people online at a time, but the only way to play (or play successfully) is to get 5 of my friends to group up with me, and we're probably only going to run into one other team of 4 to 6 or so at a time... it's pretty much the same thing.
On the other hand, if I'm playing a game and I've got a freely variable 10 to 30 or so people joining me in a quest to defeat a giant monster, I'm getting all the "massively multiplayer" experience that's going to make any difference to me. And if I'm playing a character who has distinctly different appearance, abilities, or powers from the other players' characters, that's about all the RPG I'm going to get in most games, sadly.
Now, some kind of persistence also moves the game away from a mere team e-sport, but again, if you've got 500 people attacking a monster or an NPC army, or going through a dungeon or "open world" quest... and 5 minutes after defeating your enemy, you do it again because you're farming for XP or loot or whatever... kind of kills the RPG experience, doesn't it? And how much difference does it make to the gameplay experience, whether its 500 or 50? How many other players do you interact with or see at any one time? I guess if what you're looking for is an epic battle with army-sized armies that goes on for hours, it would make a significant difference, but that seems like a special kind of MMORPG to me, and something I wouldn't be interested in.
Even developers did not dear to call it Massive Multiplayer games
Developers - by default - do not "pigeon hole" their games.
They don't use labels because they don't want to appeal to the largest number of potential purchasers. Sticking a label on their game will limit the sales potential.
Nor do they want complaints (bad press) because they call it an "X" and that results in posts by people saying it doesn't have x, y and z and gets called a failed X. So no labels. Even if it dots every i and crosses every t as an X calling it one will limit sales.
About all they will admit to are a) multiplayer if it has no single player mode and b) online is an online connection is needed to run the game. Beyond that its all about the features - hype basically.
So - going by what developers say- there are no mmos. Well except for UO since RG used the term mmo to "hype" sales.
What we have are "clones" of e.g. WoW or GW2. Since comparing something to an established game is precise. Callig something an "mmo" open to interpretation; calling something a "WoW or GW2 clone without x and y but with z" is precise.
So - perhaps - the next article should be the top WoW clones; or the top LoL clones etc.
I've noticed in recent years that the lines have blurred between MMOs and Multiplayer games. Battlefield used to be called an Online Multiplayer game, but in recent years people started to call it an MMO. Traditionally MMOs were only associated with MMORPGs. Games like EverQuest, City of Heroes and WoW. As it was possible for players on a server to crowd one area of a map with thousands of people.
When Guild Wars was released things changed, it was a section or instanced based game. I used to refer to it as a pseudo MMO or fake MMO. As it pretends to be something it actually is not. And I enjoyed GW, sinking a lot of free time into that game back in the day. Didn't change what it was. Guild Wars 2 on the other hand was a full blown MMO.
The birth of the blurred lines probably lies in the younger generations of gamers. As they mislabeled games and were probably never corrected or simply argued the point believing that they are indeed correct.
I remember when this site was about MMORPGs not mobas, fps, multiplayer sims and hack and slash dungeon crawlers.
Half of the games in this (yet another) best mmorpgs of 2017 list are not even RPGS and are hardly Massive Multiplayers.
List and Site should be changed to "some of the best games you can play with a few people spanning different genres of games of 2017 in the opinion of yet another clueless author being paid to advertise a bunch of irrelevant games on a site that was founded on bringing news about RPG games"
MMO massively multiplayer online is not 100 people on a server... i would not class massively as 100, you on the other hand might but 100 in my book is not massive 1000+ then yes
Then WoW must not be an MMO then because there are many servers that don't come close to 100 people consecutively online. Sure if you add up players across multiple servers it does, but on a single server, many fail your definition.
"The Best of" lists are hardly the best of... just another year end tradition like resolutions... most of which are forgotten before the new year even begins.
Just a small reminder... the point of the article is to get a reaction... and a reaction it got. It's why Trump tweets so much. Not a day goes by that someone isn't quoting him.
Then WoW must not be an MMO then because there are many servers that don't come close to 100 people consecutively online.
I'd love to have the source of your numbers. Note that I'm not holding my breath.
Also what matters is the capability and the capacity. An empty bus driving around is not suddenly a bike because it only has 1 person in it.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
Then WoW must not be an MMO then because there are many servers that don't come close to 100 people consecutively online.
I'd love to have the source of your numbers. Note that I'm not holding my breath.
Also what matters is the capability and the capacity. An empty bus driving around is not suddenly a bike because it only has 1 person in it.
Very true. But to expand on that analogy, if you never have more then 4 passengers you might not need a bus in the first place and switch to a car. Hence the birth of survival games, squad based shooters and lobby based pvp/moba games.
I think half of the MMOs out there could do without the 'massively' just fine because it doesn't really ad anything except for a chat channel.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Then WoW must not be an MMO then because there are many servers that don't come close to 100 people consecutively online.
I'd love to have the source of your numbers. Note that I'm not holding my breath.
Also what matters is the capability and the capacity. An empty bus driving around is not suddenly a bike because it only has 1 person in it.
Very true. But to expand on that analogy, if you never have more then 4 passengers you might not need a bus in the first place and switch to a car. Hence the birth of survival games, squad based shooters and lobby based pvp/moba games.
I think half of the MMOs out there could do without the 'massively' just fine because it doesn't really ad anything except for a chat channel.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
And that's such a shame, the potential of the genre's only unique strengths is largely wasted.
Then WoW must not be an MMO then because there are many servers that don't come close to 100 people consecutively online.
I'd love to have the source of your numbers. Note that I'm not holding my breath.
Also what matters is the capability and the capacity. An empty bus driving around is not suddenly a bike because it only has 1 person in it.
It's sad that capacity and quantity, not quality, of interaction is the defining attribute. Maybe that is why that old static concept of MMOs is dying. People are realizing that quality, not quantity, is what they want.
I have more interaction, and more quality interactions, in ESO, D2, and SWL than I do in LotRO, WoW, EQ2, or Rift and yet only one of the former is a full on MMO. I actually interact with other players randomly in those games. We help each other.
What does it matter if something has a potential if that isn't realized. Do I really care if a game can have thousands on the screen at one time if that never happens if it never behaves like an MMO in practice?
A bus that carries 50 people isn't more of a bus than the one that carries 20. It's just bigger slower and more costly. The problem the bus people are finding out is that a passenger van can do the same job better and it's often a more pleasant ride. The passenger van company is offering a better bus service. That makes the bus people feel marginalized, but the van people don't care anymore because the bus people have been pretentious elitist assholes for the last 15 years and no one wants to ride their fucking buses anymore. Wait, wut?
Yes, well, I like to think I've excluded myself from the elitist crowd but one day if busses are ever back in style then everyone calling these vans busses are going to feel pretty foolish.
Like, does one rent an Uber and then ask his friends 'shall we ride the bus to the airport?'
It's fine if Uber is an all-around better service for one's needs, but why call it a bus? It seems misleading.
To get right to the point, I agree with the other poster who stated that a big thing MMORPGs have to offer is quasi-random socialization; you don't get to pick who your bus partners are as much as you do when riding Uber.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Then WoW must not be an MMO then because there are many servers that don't come close to 100 people consecutively online.
I'd love to have the source of your numbers. Note that I'm not holding my breath.
Also what matters is the capability and the capacity. An empty bus driving around is not suddenly a bike because it only has 1 person in it.
Very true. But to expand on that analogy, if you never have more then 4 passengers you might not need a bus in the first place and switch to a car. Hence the birth of survival games, squad based shooters and lobby based pvp/moba games.
I think half of the MMOs out there could do without the 'massively' just fine because it doesn't really ad anything except for a chat channel.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Yes you are right. But that doesn't change the current definitions. They dropped the massively part in design, but kept the name.
Whoever believes the definition has changed has to do more than just saying that and start calling whatever they "feel appropriate" an mmo. We have to understand the logic of this newly changed definition. Because right now, it seems you guys only call super hyped games an MMO.
You guys are the professionals. How about instead of fighting us in the comments section with sarcastic remarks, write an article stating how this progression has happened (besides a marketing scheme) and how would you know a game is an MMO or not.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
Then WoW must not be an MMO then because there are many servers that don't come close to 100 people consecutively online.
I'd love to have the source of your numbers. Note that I'm not holding my breath.
Also what matters is the capability and the capacity. An empty bus driving around is not suddenly a bike because it only has 1 person in it.
It's sad that capacity and quantity, not quality, of interaction is the defining attribute. Maybe that is why that old static concept of MMOs is dying. People are realizing that quality, not quantity, is what they want.
I have more interaction, and more quality interactions, in ESO, D2, and SWL than I do in LotRO, WoW, EQ2, or Rift and yet only one of the former is a full on MMO. I actually interact with other players randomly in those games. We help each other.
What does it matter if something has a potential if that isn't realized. Do I really care if a game can have thousands on the screen at one time if that never happens if it never behaves like an MMO in practice?
A bus that carries 50 people isn't more of a bus than the one that carries 20. It's just bigger slower and more costly. The problem the bus people are finding out is that a passenger van can do the same job better and it's often a more pleasant ride. The passenger van company is offering a better bus service. That makes the bus people feel marginalized, but the van people don't care anymore because the bus people have been pretentious elitist assholes for the last 15 years and no one wants to ride their fucking buses anymore. Wait, wut?
The quality of the interactions is not part of the genre definition. Only the capacity of the scope of interaction.
Then WoW must not be an MMO then because there are many servers that don't come close to 100 people consecutively online.
I'd love to have the source of your numbers. Note that I'm not holding my breath.
Also what matters is the capability and the capacity. An empty bus driving around is not suddenly a bike because it only has 1 person in it.
It's sad that capacity and quantity, not quality, of interaction is the defining attribute. Maybe that is why that old static concept of MMOs is dying. People are realizing that quality, not quantity, is what they want.
I have more interaction, and more quality interactions, in ESO, D2, and SWL than I do in LotRO, WoW, EQ2, or Rift and yet only one of the former is a full on MMO. I actually interact with other players randomly in those games. We help each other.
What does it matter if something has a potential if that isn't realized. Do I really care if a game can have thousands on the screen at one time if that never happens if it never behaves like an MMO in practice?
A bus that carries 50 people isn't more of a bus than the one that carries 20. It's just bigger slower and more costly. The problem the bus people are finding out is that a passenger van can do the same job better and it's often a more pleasant ride. The passenger van company is offering a better bus service. That makes the bus people feel marginalized, but the van people don't care anymore because the bus people have been pretentious elitist assholes for the last 15 years and no one wants to ride their fucking buses anymore. Wait, wut?
Yo mate, howdy and happy holidays!
I never meant that these non-MMO games lack quality or interaction or any of the other good stuff. I never said MMOs are better than other games. I also never said that you can't have interaction in other types of games.
What you care or not care doesn't affect the genre's definition. I have never got scared watching a horror movie, not even a little bit. I can't change the definition and call them comedies, because I personally don't get terrified watching them. The genre's definition is self-determining and my personal feeling is irrelevant.
There are standards for designing a bus. You can't design a vehicle that can carry 5 person and call it a bus, market it as a bus, and sell it as a bus. Of course when it comes down to video games we don't have these type of standards.
Yes a van ride can be more pleasant. Again, the argument here isn't about the amount of potential joy people experience in different games. But besides the capacity parameter, there are also other differences between a van and a bus and can't do the "same job" as you stated. If you are taking a long trip, for instance a 20hr ride, a bus offers way more convenience over a van. Hence the ride would become more pleasant. You can't take long trips with vans. You'd know that if you were a hippie in the 60s
About the "pretentious elitist assholes" part, well that's a bit weird. I'm not sure where you got that from. A game not being an MMO is not an insult.
Considering your other posts mate, I think you are taking this whole debate rather personal. As in you believe people are belittling the games you play. I don't think I have ever done anything in that regard, and if I did unintentionally, I apologize.
This is my whole argument if anyone cares what I think: The change of the definition isn't due to the progression of the genre, but is due to the lack of relevant titles.
If anyone believes in this "progress" please do state your reasons.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
The MMORPG genre started as a niche, one title achieved huge amounts of success, and since then... Every other title has largely enjoyed a niche following relative to the industry. There's nothing wrong with that- it certainly doesn't mean the genre definition needs to be thrown out simply to have more games to talk about.
Talk about them. We're all gamer nerds. Just stop trying to call them something they're not when it's unnecessary, arbitrary, and confusing.
Man cover any game you want. Gamespot and IGN started covering comics, TV shows and movies a couple of years ago. But they don't call them freaking video games just to be able to write about them. And no one says your site's name is GAMEspot so you are allowed to write only about games. Stop trolling us!
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
Comments
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
An MMO is defined as "
an online game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players, typically from hundreds to thousands, on the same server." ...this list at no place says "Top MMORPGS" So...yeah. they are MMOs. Theres really no debate in this, its stated in the name MMO.
But folks don't include titles like Battlefield, because the "new definition" isn't a definition at all, but an attempt to attach the label to any game that might benefit the party using the label at that time. As I mentioned before, that's about the only way to create an objectively terribad definition for a genre.
Any difference in meaning between the terms "MMORPG" and "MMO" was ascribed after the fact. It's not like someone sat down and said 'we need a new term to define these new games coming out so let's chop off the last three letters, voila!'; it's more that Richard Garriot didn't foresee that when one was standing in line talking to one's GameStop clerk saying "em-em-oh-ar-pee-gee" made one sound abstruse when three syllables would get the job done.
MMO rolls off the tongue more easily, and while this term gained traction game design also changed. It was more of an accident than anything else. So easy to correlate the nouveau term with the daring new design(s).
It bothers me because there never was supposed to be any difference. MMO = MMORPG.
Part of it is also that people play MMORPGs in unexpected ways; it's kind of in the term: you are supposed to be role-playing, but how many actually do? Just being in the game space is compelling enough without muddying it up with "thee"s and "thou"s (necessarily). That is actual roleplaying: believing the space, but this seems too difficult a concept for the young internet age.
There is no reason a MMORPG can't have physics-based combat, instancing, a classless system, or even do away with the whole experience-points-leveling grind; none of those new additions take away anything from the heart of what makes a MMORPG a MMORPG.
It's just that some things do. As someone else ITT mentioned, what about PUBG qualifies as a persistent space? How is a player cap of 4 in Warframe massive?
Judging by some of the comments here, some people really don't understand why it even matters.
So there is this disconnect: people aren't playing MMORPGs the way they are "supposed" to be played, therefore it must be because some of them are "just" MMOs? No: it's because people are unpredictable widgets and will interact with art in wonderful and emergent ways.
...and as @GeezerGamer mentions, some don't understand the difference between an adverb and an adjective.
I agree with @Torval in spirit, but I fear in trying to stay so desperately abreast of the times some meaning in the value of MMORPGs will be lost.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
Oddly enough, in your other post, I'd probably concede to 16 being within the definition. I probably wouldn't use the term myself at 16 players, but I can see enough of a grey area in that to give it a pass. But I would struggle under any context to apply the term Massively Multiplayer to any game where the number of players who can interact together is in the single digits.
Also, dungeons and dragons online has a very tiny server cluster...even at its peak I never saw more than 30 people in each server instance. Its also a hub based MMO. Its a very small hub. Its also VERY VERY instanced.
Turbine (the developers themselves) and many players however called it an MMORPG.
Why the double standards? Since Dungeons and Dragons Online is an MMO(RPG), and been called an MMO(RPG) for many years, and called that by Turbine themselves, so are the other similar games.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul
MMO is a nice shorthand way of saying MMORPG, in the right context, but obviously it has merit as simply meaning MMO without the RPG, too. Writers should just be clear what they're talking about.
Also, there were lots of games that had multiple players long before MMORPGS or even computers came out, but nobody called them multiplayer games -- they were "team sports" and such. So games like Overwatch, which involve 12 players at a time, I don't think of as MMOs, or MOs for that matter. On the other hand, if I play a game that has thousands of people online at a time, but the only way to play (or play successfully) is to get 5 of my friends to group up with me, and we're probably only going to run into one other team of 4 to 6 or so at a time... it's pretty much the same thing.
On the other hand, if I'm playing a game and I've got a freely variable 10 to 30 or so people joining me in a quest to defeat a giant monster, I'm getting all the "massively multiplayer" experience that's going to make any difference to me. And if I'm playing a character who has distinctly different appearance, abilities, or powers from the other players' characters, that's about all the RPG I'm going to get in most games, sadly.
Now, some kind of persistence also moves the game away from a mere team e-sport, but again, if you've got 500 people attacking a monster or an NPC army, or going through a dungeon or "open world" quest... and 5 minutes after defeating your enemy, you do it again because you're farming for XP or loot or whatever... kind of kills the RPG experience, doesn't it? And how much difference does it make to the gameplay experience, whether its 500 or 50? How many other players do you interact with or see at any one time? I guess if what you're looking for is an epic battle with army-sized armies that goes on for hours, it would make a significant difference, but that seems like a special kind of MMORPG to me, and something I wouldn't be interested in.
They don't use labels because they don't want to appeal to the largest number of potential purchasers. Sticking a label on their game will limit the sales potential.
Nor do they want complaints (bad press) because they call it an "X" and that results in posts by people saying it doesn't have x, y and z and gets called a failed X. So no labels. Even if it dots every i and crosses every t as an X calling it one will limit sales.
About all they will admit to are a) multiplayer if it has no single player mode and b) online is an online connection is needed to run the game. Beyond that its all about the features - hype basically.
So - going by what developers say- there are no mmos. Well except for UO since RG used the term mmo to "hype" sales.
What we have are "clones" of e.g. WoW or GW2. Since comparing something to an established game is precise. Callig something an "mmo" open to interpretation; calling something a "WoW or GW2 clone without x and y but with z" is precise.
So - perhaps - the next article should be the top WoW clones; or the top LoL clones etc.
When Guild Wars was released things changed, it was a section or instanced based game. I used to refer to it as a pseudo MMO or fake MMO. As it pretends to be something it actually is not. And I enjoyed GW, sinking a lot of free time into that game back in the day. Didn't change what it was. Guild Wars 2 on the other hand was a full blown MMO.
The birth of the blurred lines probably lies in the younger generations of gamers. As they mislabeled games and were probably never corrected or simply argued the point believing that they are indeed correct.
My 2 bits.
Half of the games in this (yet another) best mmorpgs of 2017 list are not even RPGS and are hardly Massive Multiplayers.
List and Site should be changed to "some of the best games you can play with a few people spanning different genres of games of 2017 in the opinion of yet another clueless author being paid to advertise a bunch of irrelevant games on a site that was founded on bringing news about RPG games"
Then WoW must not be an MMO then because there are many servers that don't come close to 100 people consecutively online. Sure if you add up players across multiple servers it does, but on a single server, many fail your definition.
"The Best of" lists are hardly the best of... just another year end tradition like resolutions... most of which are forgotten before the new year even begins.
Just a small reminder... the point of the article is to get a reaction... and a reaction it got. It's why Trump tweets so much. Not a day goes by that someone isn't quoting him.
I think half of the MMOs out there could do without the 'massively' just fine because it doesn't really ad anything except for a chat channel.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Like, does one rent an Uber and then ask his friends 'shall we ride the bus to the airport?'
It's fine if Uber is an all-around better service for one's needs, but why call it a bus? It seems misleading.
To get right to the point, I agree with the other poster who stated that a big thing MMORPGs have to offer is quasi-random socialization; you don't get to pick who your bus partners are as much as you do when riding Uber.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
Whoever believes the definition has changed has to do more than just saying that and start calling whatever they "feel appropriate" an mmo. We have to understand the logic of this newly changed definition. Because right now, it seems you guys only call super hyped games an MMO.
You guys are the professionals. How about instead of fighting us in the comments section with sarcastic remarks, write an article stating how this progression has happened (besides a marketing scheme) and how would you know a game is an MMO or not.
I never meant that these non-MMO games lack quality or interaction or any of the other good stuff. I never said MMOs are better than other games. I also never said that you can't have interaction in other types of games.
What you care or not care doesn't affect the genre's definition. I have never got scared watching a horror movie, not even a little bit. I can't change the definition and call them comedies, because I personally don't get terrified watching them. The genre's definition is self-determining and my personal feeling is irrelevant.
There are standards for designing a bus. You can't design a vehicle that can carry 5 person and call it a bus, market it as a bus, and sell it as a bus. Of course when it comes down to video games we don't have these type of standards.
Yes a van ride can be more pleasant. Again, the argument here isn't about the amount of potential joy people experience in different games. But besides the capacity parameter, there are also other differences between a van and a bus and can't do the "same job" as you stated. If you are taking a long trip, for instance a 20hr ride, a bus offers way more convenience over a van. Hence the ride would become more pleasant. You can't take long trips with vans. You'd know that if you were a hippie in the 60s
About the "pretentious elitist assholes" part, well that's a bit weird. I'm not sure where you got that from. A game not being an MMO is not an insult.
Considering your other posts mate, I think you are taking this whole debate rather personal. As in you believe people are belittling the games you play. I don't think I have ever done anything in that regard, and if I did unintentionally, I apologize.
This is my whole argument if anyone cares what I think:
The change of the definition isn't due to the progression of the genre, but is due to the lack of relevant titles.
If anyone believes in this "progress" please do state your reasons.
The MMORPG genre started as a niche, one title achieved huge amounts of success, and since then... Every other title has largely enjoyed a niche following relative to the industry. There's nothing wrong with that- it certainly doesn't mean the genre definition needs to be thrown out simply to have more games to talk about.
Talk about them. We're all gamer nerds. Just stop trying to call them something they're not when it's unnecessary, arbitrary, and confusing.
Top 10 First Person Shooters 2017
-----------------------------
Top 10 Wireless PC Peripherals 2017
-----------------------------
Any suggestions to finish these up? Thanks.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯